alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The State, ex rel. Lagedrost, *v.*Beightler, Dir. of Dept. of Highways.

(No. 27532

Decided July 5, 1939.)

*Mr. E. J. Kautz,*for relator.

*Mr. Thomas J. Herbert,*attorney general, and *Mr. John P. Walsh,*for respondent.

By the Court.

The issue presented in this case is made by demurrer to the petition filed in this court. The pertinent facts may be stated as follows:

The relator was, on September 8, 1938, appointed by the then Director of Highways of the state to a position of truck driver and, upon taking a non-competitive examination, was so certified by the Civil Service Commission of the state. It is alleged that there then existed urgent reasons for filling a vacancy theretofore existing in such position, and the Civil Service Commission was unable to furnish a list of persons eligible for such appointment resulting from a competitive examination. It is further averred that the relator was appointed to such position by the Director of Highways “by provisional appointment that relator continued in such service until February 16, 1939, when he was notified by the resident division deputy director of highways of the discontinuance of his service; that thereupon another person was appointed to perform the duties theretofore required to be performed by the relator, which appointment was made without competitive examination; and that relator was not given an opportunity to take a competitive examination for such position. He seeks a *625writ of mandamus requiring Ms restoration and reinstatement.

The demurrer to the petition is overruled and, respondent not desiring to plead further, a writ may issue on authority of *State, ex rel. Slovensky,*v. *Taylor, Dir., ante,*601, this day decided.

*Writ allowed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams and Myers, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 4.1

                            CORONADO INDUSTRIES, INC.
                      16929 E. Enterprise Drive, Suite 202
                            Fountain Hills, AZ 85268

                                  July 15, 2004


Coronado Employees and Consultants,

     The  Company's  Board of  Directors  has decided to make  available  to all
employees and consultants,  shares of the Company's common stock at a negotiated
price of not less than 90% of the lowest closing bid price during the week prior
to the employee's payday.

     To participate  in this program,  all you have to do is execute this letter
in the space below,  and indicate the amount of wages you wish to have allocated
to this Plan and the pay period from which your salary  will be  credited.  Your
free-trading shares will be delivered to you within a few days.

                                        Coronado Industries, Inc.


                                        By:  /s/ Gary R. Smith
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Gary R. Smith, President




----------------------------            ----------------------------------------
Amount of Wages                         Employee Signature



----------------------------            ----------------------------------------
Pay Period From                         Name of Employee
Which To Be Paid                        (Please Print)
Azoxystrobin Human Health Risk Assessment DP No. 394285 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

MEMORANDUM 

Date: 12118/2012 

OFFICE OF 

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND 

POLLUTION PREVENTION 

SUBJECT: Azoxystrobin: Revision to the Human Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed 

Use on Sugarcane. 

PC Code: 128810 

Decision No.: 451265 

Petition No.: 1F789l 

Risk Assessment Type: Single ChemicaU Aggregate 

TXRNo.: NA 

MRIDNo.: NA 

DP Barcode: 0394285 

Registration Nos.: 100-1120, 100-1220, 100-1098, 100-

1324 

Regulatory Action: Section 3 Registration 

Case No.: 7020 

CAS No.: 131860-33-8 

40 CFR: §180.507 

FROM: Kristin 

Whang 

Rury

Phang

, Biologist 

, Senior Toxic~l~g~ ~ ~~ h Meheret Negussie, Chemist lYe4e· · w~·e._ 

Risk Assessment Branch 3 

Health Effects Division (7509P) 

THROUGH: Jeff Dawson, Acting Branch Chief 

Risk Assessment Branch 3 

Health Effects Division (7509P) 

TO: Shaunta Hill 

Fungicide Branch, RM#20 

Registration Division (7505P) 

This memorandum amends the Human Health Risk Assessment (D394285, K. Rury, 

04/30/2012), a petition for new uses of azoxystrobin on sugarcane. 

In D394285, a revised Section B was requested: 

860.1200 Directions for Use 

• The rotational crop restrictions on the registered label for Quilt Xcel® Fungicide (EPA 

Reg. No. 1 00-1324) should be revised to increase the plant-back interval (PBI) for carrot 

from 0 days to 36 days. 

Page 1 of2 
Azoxystrobin Human Health Risk Assessment DP No. 394285 

CONCLUSIONSIRECOMMENDA TIONS 

The recommended revisions ofthe rotational crop restriction under OCSPP 860.1200 Directions 

for Use for EPA Reg. No. 100-1324 for carrots from 0 days to 36 are not needed. Tolerances for 

azoxystrobin, including its Z-isomer, have been established on vegetable, root, subgroup 1A, 

which includes carrots. All other information contained in the risk assessment (D394285) 

remains unchanged. 

Page 2 of2
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

					NO. 2-05-076-CV

TONY VAN D/B/A FOUNDATION 						APPELLANT

OF THE INTERNATIONAL LESS 

FORTUNATE	

	V.

AMKO AUSTIN, L.L.C.	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

		MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	------------

	On February 17, 2005 and March 24, 2005, we notified appellant, in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless the $125 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).  Appellant has not paid the $125 filing fee.  See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

	Because appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court's order of July 21, 1998,2 we dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

	Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 5.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D: HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.	

DELIVERED: May 5, 2005
EXHIBIT
31.2
   CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
   SECTION
302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   I,
Francis V. Dane, certify that:
  1. I have
reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Communication Intelligence
Corporation;
  2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;
  3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;
  4. The
registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
  (a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;
  (b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation;
  (c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;
  5. The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
  (a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and
  (b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.
   Date:
March 12, 2008
  /s/
Francic V. Dane
 Principal
Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, filed
herewith.

                          Armstrong Holdings, Inc. and
                        Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
                                (the "Companies")

                  Written Statement by Chief Executive Officer
              Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that the Companies' Form 10-Q
periodic report containing their respective financial statements for the fiscal
quarter ended June 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that information contained in
that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Companies as of that date.


/s/ Michael D. Lockhart
--------------------------------
Michael D. Lockhart
Chief Executive Officer
Armstrong Holdings, Inc. and
Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

Dated: August 8, 2002
Paul Applewhite

Applewhite Aero

PO Box 46955

Seattle, WA 98146

Subject: Docket FAA-2013-0654, Exemption from 14CFR 91.203 (a) and (b) and 91.9(b)

Applewhite Aero is applying for an experimental airworthiness certificate to operate a small unmanned 

aircraft in an approved operating area. As these aircraft are small and incapable of carrying a human, the 

aircraft are not suitable for carrying the flight manual, or displaying registrations and airworthiness 

certificates. These items will be maintained at the ground station with the pilot in command of the UAV.

Applewhite Aero believes the approval of our exemption from 14CFR 91.203 (a) and (b) and 91.9(b) is in 

the public interest as it supports commerce in the development and marketing of UAV technology, as 

well as supporting safe and appropriate procedures for integrating UAV technology into the NAS. By 

maintaining the documents required by 91.9 and 91.203 at the ground control station with the pilot in 

command, the exemption provides an equivalent level of safety to the original intent of the regulations. 

To summarize, Applewhite Aero is requesting an exemption to 14 CFR 91.203 (a) and (b) and 14 CFR 

91.9 (b) to support the operation of small unmanned aircraft registered and certificated by the FAA to 

operate within the limitations identified by the FAA in the national airspace. 

Respectfully,

Paul G. Applewhite

Applewhite Aero
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE 

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING 

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. 

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

Isiah James, Jr., Petitioner, 

v. 

South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and 

Pardon Services, Respondent. 

Appellate Case No. 2013-000028 

Lower Court Case No. 2005-CP-40-02795 

Appeal From Richland County 

The Honorable DeAndrea G. Benjamin, 

Circuit Court Judge 

Memorandum Opinion No. 2014-MO-012 

Submitted May 6, 2014 – Filed May 14, 2014 

REVERSED AND REMANDED 

Isiah James, Jr., pro se petitioner, of Ridgeland. 

Tommy Evans, Jr., of South Carolina Department of 

Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services, of Columbia, for 

Respondent. 

PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to review the Court of 

Appeals' decision in James v. S.C. Dep't of Probation, Parole and Pardon Servs., 
 

Op. No. 2012-UP-503 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Sept. 5, 2012). We grant the petition, 

dispense with further briefing, reverse the Court of Appeals' opinion, and remand 

the case to the circuit court for a decision on petitioner's appeal. 

In 2003, the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services 

(SCDPPPS) denied petitioner's request for parole. The Administrative Law Court 

affirmed the denial. On June 13, 2005, petitioner appealed the denial to the circuit 

court and simultaneously sought to have his appeal transferred to the Court of 

Appeals. The SCDPPPS opposed the transfer, and the transfer was denied. 

In 2011, SCDPPPS moved to dismiss petitioner's appeal pending in the circuit 

court, arguing the Court of Appeals, rather than the circuit court, had subject 

matter jurisdiction over petitioner's appeal. The circuit court dismissed the appeal, 

and the Court of Appeals affirmed. 

Because petitioner filed the appeal in the circuit court on June 13, 2005, prior to 

the effective date of 2006 Act No. 3871

 the circuit court had jurisdiction to hear 

petitioner's appeal. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals' opinion and 

remand the case to the circuit court for a decision on petitioner's appeal. 

REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur. 

BEATTY, J., not participating. 

1

 Act 387, which was signed into law on June 9, 2006, and became effective on June 1, 2006, 

provided a uniform procedure for contested cases and appeals from administrative agencies. The 

Act amended § 1-23-610, but indicated that petitions for judicial review that were pending before 

the circuit court at that time would be heard in accordance with the former law.
#### Nathaniel RODGERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28766.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 16, 1957.

C. C. Divine, Houston, for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Eugene Brady and Thomas D. White, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The offense is nighttime burglary of a private residence; the punishment, 5 years.

The record contains no formal bills of exception and no complaint as to the charge of the court.

Zelma Ruth Thompson testified that at about 10:30 at night she saw a man in the bedroom of her private residence, which she occupied with her little daughter. When she saw him the man was crawling over a day bed under a window from which the latched screen had been removed.

Mrs. Thompson called out and threatened to “blow out his middle section”, whereupon the man made his exit through the window.

The following day appellant made a statement to Officer R. L. Spivey in which he confessed that he opened the screen and entered the house described by Mrs. Thompson as her private residence. He said that he had “spotted” a purse in the house which he intended to get, but ran when a lady came in the room and threatened to shoot him. He further stated that he had taken Officer Spivey to the house and showed him where he got in the window.

Appellant did not testify and offered no defensive testimony.

The evidence sustains the conviction and we overrule the contention that the corpus delicti was established alone by the extra judicial confession.

*828The confession may be used in connection with other facts and circumstances in establishing the corpus delicti. Watson v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 438, 227 S.W.2d 559; Pollan v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 178, 247 S.W.2d 889.

The rule is also applicable that where the defendant makes a burglarious entry into a house at night and upon being discovered flees, and there is no evidence suggesting an intent other than that to commit theft, the jury’s verdict finding that the burglary was with intent to commit theft will not be set aside as not supported by the facts. Dimery v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 197, 240 S.W.2d 293; Vol. 4 Branch’s Ann.P.C., 2d Ed., Sec. 2535.

The informal bills shown in the statement of facts have been considered and no reversible error is observed.

The judgment is affirmed.
14910-1

## ~,:t;,,,,,,,",,,:::::= RmmN"'H'HOL 

### ," 

### 1110 - (! 

# U. '~~ )AI~ 

## ?1/2idY .\"''''''''' sn.ll<OL f 

### I 

# -fr3

..- '<i""i/~'" "O\lf\N(;SY,~lOL 

## 1¥~ij.(SYi

\ 

# -itt:;',- , 

## -'~ 

# ~h~;b9" ~0'Jf'''';

S'~1BOl.- 

# , 

# ,

# .." 

# ~et NII'IAl$.'SI(] 

### ( .(..E-~ ATE 

### '1/2--' I J"" L, , UTINGHMUOL 

## N'J""-- \\'\ st ~~ ) 

# ;1;

# lJ110~ c ~""JnNG SY"O<aL 

### i\l'lM-- )6i 

# Nn~/ 7 o<.m~GSy,n>o'- AN\'J\-~(OO NlT1.\~,,; • ~ 'I,

# ,,"\'{;I'" ;;m: 

## \2-1

# ;,fc'? '.<>UT''''' ,V>.lliO'- 

### , "'Tt~LSi,a,, ~'''Tr 

### * * * 

## * *** Revision 00 of AlRBUS A340 ALS Part 3:

- adds ne\v CMR (Ccltificatioll Maintenance Requirements) tasks associated with modifications,

- revises the apphcabllity of some CMR tasks,

-revises some CMR tasks with increased intervals,

- revises a CMR task with a more restrictive interval,

- deletes CMR task 282300-B0002-1-C 

## * 0:< 

## * . Oliginated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an LtnSa~ ACTION: Final rule; request for conmlents.
condition on an aviation product. The MeAl desclibes the unsafe condition as: AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (F.Au";.), Dcpaliment ofTransp0rlafion Airplanes Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A340-200. -300, -500. and -600 Series RLN Z120-AA64

Some ofthose changes const1tllte more restrictive requirements for aeroplane configuration already in service. Failure to comply with this Revision 00 of AIRBUS A340 ALS Part 3constitutes an unsafe condition. above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness infonnation (MeAl Federal Aviation Administration

(DOT). DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATlON

SUMMARY: We are adopting anew ajrwo~h1l1essdirective (AD) for the products Ii 14 CFR Part 39 IDocket No. FAA-Z009J":h8,?Direetorate Identifier Z009-NM-088-AD; 

# ,~,~~~

- , 

### ~~.'- Amendment 39_-;"*H,~'; AD 2009-'"'*-**1
#### Inez Fay FLEMING, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27621.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 18, 1955.

Dick Young, Houston, -for appellant'.'

. Dan Walton, Di'st. Atty., Eugene Brady, Jr., Thomas 'D. White, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The conviction is for aggravated assault; the punishment, ninety days in jail and a fine of $50.

The record is before us without a statement of facts.

Appellant contends that he has been deprived of a statement of facts without any fault or negligence on his part.

In support of such contention, the joint affidavit of appellant and his attorney has been filed in this cause which states that they used due diligence to obtain, a statement of facts in that they paid the court reporter for the same with the understanding that he would furnish a statement of facts within a reasonable time before the expiration of the time allowed for filing of same with the clerk of the trial court, which the reporter failed to do. The receipt of payment, by the court reporter, for a statement of facts was shown.

It is incumbent upon the appellant to. obtain the statement of - facts, to have the same properly approved, and to follow it up to see that it is filed as required hy law. Upon the reporter’s failure to furnish the statement of facts, it was appellant’s duty to resort to proper legal process to compel him to do so, and the failure to take such action or make any effort to invoke the aid of the court, shows lack of diligence precluding relief. The record fails to show the exercise of diligence in that appellant did not resort to any means to secure the statement of facts other than above mentioned. 4 Tex.Jur. 446, Sec. 308; 4 Tex.Jur. 455, Sec. 314; McHenry v. State, 141 Tex.Cr.R. 118, 147 S.W.2d 488; Teague v. State, 158 Tex. Cr.R. 83, 253 S.W.2d 276.

*341By Bill of Exception No'. 1,- appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to permit him to prové, on cross-examination of the state’s witness Thomas, the alleged assaulted party, that she had been charged with felony theft for the purpose of attacking her credibility as a witness.

The use of accusations against a witness for impeachment purposes which have not resulted in a final conviction is expressly prohibited by Art. 732a, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 2597

_____________________________
R ONTARIAN W RIGHT , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Gadsden County

. Barbara K. Hobbs , Judge

. June 13, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R AY , B ILBREY , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Rontarian Wright, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Virginia C. Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1613 

To amend title VI of the Clean Air Act to make a restriction on the 

use of class II substances inapplicable to certain fire suppression agents. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 15, 2011 

Mr. HECK (for himself, Mr. MATHESON, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, and Mr. HELLER) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title VI of the Clean Air Act to make a restriction 

on the use of class II substances inapplicable to certain 

fire suppression agents. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fire Protection Act 

5 of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FIRE SUPPRESSION AGENTS. 

7 Section 605(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 

8 7671d(a)) is amended— 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1613 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph 

2 (2); 

3 (2) by striking the period at the end of para4 graph (3) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

5 (3) by adding the following new paragraph after 

6 paragraph (3): 

7 ‘‘(4) is listed as acceptable for use as a fire sup8 pression agent for nonresidential applications in ac9 cordance with section 612(c).’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS